NASA Engineer (ret.) is a Twoofie?

[The Big Dog]

With all the barrage of questions and comments, I don't know which to respond to.

So, I'll pick this one as is a good one on which to expand.

The ten witnesses testifying to a north flight path were each in an excellent physical position to testify to what they claim to have seen that turns out to be consistent with a flight path North of the Citco station.

If the plane had flown a flight path South of the Citco station, you would think there would have been a similar number of people speaking up, and who were in an excellent physical position to testify to that. Turns out, there are none who have spoken up.

There are a large number of witnesses (seventy or so) who were NOT in an excellent physical position to say one way or another if the plane flew North or South of the Citco station. Therefore, I don't think their testimony on this issue should be given much weight.

Seriously, Dwain?

Whatever.

Here take it from a truther:

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2009/07/william-lagasse-these-poles-were-not.html

http://visibility911.com/eriklarson/?p=134

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/critical-review-of-pentacon-smoking-gun.html

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/03/pentagon-eyewitness-testimony.html

Of course, Mr. Deets bought Pfft's EMBARRASSING hockey stick calculation, so I got one thing left to say to the new truther hero:

Welcome to the Forum, No Planer!

 

[beachnut]

For Deets, there are unspecified high temperatures. Deets, adds the insanity of thermite to his resume on 911, and all three buildings fell at free fall! lol

Dwain, please specify the temperature that office fires can't do, and your evidence for the temperature.

Thermite? lol

What I’m saying is, the temperatures are so high that the ordinary office fires and aviation fuel fires can’t come close to explaining those high temperatures. The third point is, there has been evidence of high-tech, and I can’t say they’re explosives, but they are nano-thermite. Nano meaning they’re extremely small and had to be manufactured with very sophisticated equipment and knowledge, which we only know about in government laboratories. But it was highly sophisticated, and how exactly it is designed, it could be very explosive, or something used in a different way. We use the term pyrotechnic to describe that category. So it was used as an explosive or pyrotechnic. But either way, the key thing is it provides an explanation why the temperatures were so high and persisted for so long afterwards. So it fits together with that set of findings in a very consistent way. The fourth major thing is, all three buildings came down at freefall, gravitational freefall, or very close to it. The only way that can happen is if the lower structure was abruptly removed to allow the top part to fall into freefall. This fits into the other things I talk about. There were several varieties of explosives. And the ones that we found are just one of those, and not necessarily the one that did most of the damage. We just don’t know that kind of thing. When I say we, there was an international team of scientists and chemists that studied the dust from the WTC and reported in the open literature, so it’s there and there has not been any counterpublication to say this is not true.

It was published in a vanity journal, they paid to publish, it was not peer reviewed, it was fake. Deets does not know thermite leaves iron behind, fused to steel if it was used, and would be found as evidence. He can't specify the fuses used; who did it, why, or how, how much. Plus there is more heat energy in office fires than thermite. Plastics have ten times the heat energy, paper beats thermite, jet fuel is 10 times more heat too. Looks like thermite would be the dumbest thing to bring to a fire, since reams of paper would release more heat per pound as would plastic, which are already there in the computers etc.

Why do we use gasoline to run cars instead of super-nano-secret-military-grade-thermite? Because gasoline has more energy! lol, who brings thermite to an office fire? The office fire is more than enough energy to destroy the WTC towers?

Deets is in time to repeat the last 9 years of 911 truth failure, make in an even 18, and make it dumber. Where is he? I was about to make expresso...

What will he say about 93? After joining the moronic no evidence fly-over CIT team, and all other failed 911 truth organization based on delusions, what lies can he spread on 93?

 

[tsig]

But it wasn't a runway.

You have the length of a runway to adjust.

MM

They weren't trying to land the planes.

 

[fess]

Oh excuses excuses i guess your just a coward then by the way you
have no proof that flight 175 and flight 11 can do those speeds you FAIL

Are you referring back to the earlier discussions held about Vne, Vmo, and Mmo? If so, the following is a nice read.

The manufacturer's (Airbus) response (abbreviated):
"Flying at Vmo/Mmo is not forbidden [and] is possible with sidestick in neutral and no forces applied on the stick.
"Flying at a speed higher than Vmo/Mmo means flying into the peripheral flight envelope; although it is not operationally authorized to fly deliberately outside the normal flight envelope, it is not unsafe (in isolation) and it may happen (strong head gust during descent at Vmo/Mmo, or engines commanded at full power in level flight and pilot momentarily not in monitor/control of the speed/trajectory). [In such cases] the high speed protection will be activated (threshold is Vmo/Mmo plus a margin less a phase advance) if the sidestick is left in neutral, the protection will command a nose-up load factor until the speed is back below Vmo/Mmo ... But if, for whatever reason, the pilot wants to hold a speed higher than Vmo/Mmo, he can by maintaining steady nose down sidestick order. He will be warned by the permanent and unusual forces to be applied to the sidestick (in addition to the oral overspeed warning); at max, for instance, it may be flying steadily at Vmo 16 knots with full nose down sidestick deflection.
"The high speed protection is tuned in a way that guarantees that any reasonable excursion into the peripheral flight envelope ... will contain the speed below VD/MD [VD is design diving speed. MD is maximum diving speed]. For instance ... in the case when the aircraft would perform a dive with a pitch attitude of minus fifteen degrees, go through Vmo/Mmo at this pitch attitude, with no pilot recovery action greater than 1.5g and occurring only after reaching the threshold of overspeed warning. This is also checked against the most severe gusts and windshears that would be encountered while flying at Vmo/Mmo."

 

[The Big Dog]

It is rare that a new truther hero makes such a splash followed by such an incredibly quick fouling of the bed by accepting the tree fort gangs lies.

Waa waa waaaa, Mr. Deets, thanks for playing!

You chose "No plane at the Pentagon." The correct answer was "Plane at the Pentagon."

Oh, that has GOT to HURT!

/I really don't think he thought that answer through. Oh you mean Truthers are incompetent scum? huh.

 

[Fonebone]

So what hit the Pentagon?

The identical flying object that crashed into the WTC2 tower ---
A cruise missile cloaked in a Boeing jumbo jet disguise.

 

[The Big Dog]

The identical flying object that crashed into the WTC2 tower ---
A cruise missile cloaked in a Boeing jumbo jet disguise.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/363814b4cfbded00f5.jpg[/qimg]

Ouch. Mr. Deets has just seen that and said:

WHAT. THE. HELL?

Welcome to the truth Mr. Deets!

 

[TJM]

Ouch. Mr. Deets has just seen that and said:

WHAT. THE. HELL?

Welcome to the truth Mr. Deets!

It gets better.

 

[BigAl]

I would like to see a moderated discussion with Dir. Deets here. This chatter is fun but it doesn't help to that end. What happened to the moderation proposal? I want to hear what the Director has to say.

.

 

[Sabretooth]

I have read reports from veteran pilots who claim that hitting the Towers
using a simulator was extremely difficult.

Of course being God's gift to aviation, I'm sure you could hit a pea in its pod
in your sleep.

MM

I'd love to see who these "veteran pilots" are. Remind me never to fly with them.

I have rather minimal flight training...and I'd have zero trouble hitting those buildings. I've never had a pilot say or imply to me that there would be any level of difficulty.

Any 12 year old with the coordination to work a Wii remote could fly a plane into those buildings.

 

[Sabretooth]

The identical flying object that crashed into the WTC2 tower ---
A cruise missile cloaked in a Boeing jumbo jet disguise.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/363814b4cfbded00f5.jpg[/qimg]

um...you do realize that cruise missiles can fit in packs of 3 under the wing of a B-52...right?

a cruise missile is approx 1/20th the size of a Boeing 767.

Nice fail, though!

 

[RedIbis]

I would like to see a moderated discussion with Dir. Deets here. This chatter is fun but it doesn't help to that end. What happened to the moderation proposal? I want to hear what the Director has to say.

.

Hear, Hear! As you can see, it's almost as if posters such as 16.5 or Beachnut are intentionally making this a hostile environment so as to prevent any civil discourse whatsoever. I can't imagine what they're afraid of.

 

[Miragememories]

"With respect to the Pentagon, you are correct, the northern flightpath witnesses create a solid case against the official flightpath."

"So what hit the Pentagon?"

The question to be asked is; what happened inside the Pentagon?

What is the truth behind the fallen lightpoles?

An honest seeker of the truth cannot dismiss the logical conclusion that a north of Citco flightpath means the fallen lightpoles had to have been planted evidence.

"The ten witnesses testifying to a north flight path were each in an excellent physical position to testify to what they claim to have seen that turns out to be consistent with a flight path North of the Citco station."

Until you can discredit the north of Citco, on-the-record eyewitness testimony, the fallen lightpoles remain as 'smoking gun' evidence that the Pentagon attack was a masquerade.

The fallen lightpoles are more pieces of the 9/11 Was An Inside Job puzzle.

MM

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The question to be asked is; what happened inside the Pentagon?

What is the truth behind the fallen lightpoles?

An honest seeker of the truth cannot dismiss the logical conclusion that a north of Citco flightpath means the fallen lightpoles had to have been planted evidence.




Until you can discredit the north of Citco, on-the-record eyewitness testimony, the fallen lightpoles remain as 'smoking gun' evidence that the Pentagon attack was a masquerade.

The fallen lightpoles are more pieces of the 9/11 Was An Inside Job puzzle.

MM

Yeah right MM, with all the witnesses from the Pentagon & the highway there wouldn't be any possibility that those light poles would be planted.

Can you answer this question MM: Why is it that there are no documented witnesses who said they saw the light poles being planted?

 

[RedIbis]

FTR, and not that I'd have any say in this, but if a debate between Deets and Mackey were to go down, I'd like to see it focused on WTC 7 and not the Pentagon or its related flight. This is where NIST has at least proposed a hypothesis and where the greater amount of documentation exists. IMO, the Pentagon is a non-starter.

 

[twinstead]

An honest seeker of the truth cannot dismiss the logical conclusion that a north of Citco flightpath means the fallen lightpoles had to have been planted evidence.

An honest seeker of the truth cannot dismiss the logical conclusion that the because of the physical evidence of fallen light poles shows the plane taking the path that the common narrative of the event suggests, along with all the other evidence that corroborates it, the north of Citco flightpath theory is wrong.

 

[TjW]

I'm not surprised, no. Ryan Mackey: "There's nothing to debate" <--- hilarious Ronald Wieck (Yo Ron! ) rants included.




Listen up folks. An authority is speaking.

It's quite literally true, though. There is nothing to debate. Will debating over 2+2 change the answer to something other than four?
Truthers seem to think if they argue convincingly enough, it can be any number they like, "because it just doesn't seem like it ought to be four, to me".

Mackey has laid out his calculation for anyone to see. Now, it's possible that it could be shown to be incorrect. I don't think it will be, but that still won't be a debate.

 

[The Big Dog]

Hear, Hear! As you can see, it's almost as if posters such as 16.5 or Beachnut are intentionally making this a hostile environment so as to prevent any civil discourse whatsoever. I can't imagine what they're afraid of.

Hee hee, you want a moderated thread to discuss the fact that our intrepid hero, Mr. Deets, was suckered by the CIT boys?

I mean that is the issue he wanted to discuss, right?

 

[beachnut]

Hear, Hear! As you can see, it's almost as if posters such as 16.5 or Beachnut are intentionally making this a hostile environment so as to prevent any civil discourse whatsoever. I can't imagine what they're afraid of.

Deets says 77 flew over; I know 77 impacted the Pentagon. He support lies, which are offensive. The FDR makes him a liar.

Hostile, Deets should know better, but he spews delusions and signed up with the most idiotic groups in 911 truth. He has no evidence, like you and the rest of 911 truth so he can't debate, he can't present facts and evidence, he only has the standard 911 truth arsenal of hearsay, lies, and fantasy. Not a darn thing you can do to help him not make delusional statements based on zero evidence.

The WTC collapse may let the want to be engineers fool 911 truth cult followers, but the Pentagon fly over? LOL, it is pure nonsense and insanity. I can read the FDR, I understand RADAR; if we add this to the paranoid conspiracy theories Deets supports, we have a person who can't do rational research, and can't come up with rational conclusions. He has endorsed CIT! Anything he says about WTC7 is due to his paranoid tendencies, and if he was not restrained, he would blame the CIA.

Gee, why stop at WTC7, we had 5, 6, 4, a hotel and MORE. Why do the paranoid truth movement followers stop at 7? The only reason 6 and 5 did not fall because they had some water to fight them. The floors inside 5 failed due to fire, and as 911 truth lies, floors, steel floor structures can't fail in fire. LOL


MM, the FDR, hard evidence, numbers, (sad 911 truth does not do numbers) make all of CIT ideas, nonsense. Too bad 911 truth followers don't do numbers or understand flying and math; stop being a follower and learn to be an individual. Just bringing up CIT claims makes you a follower of woo, not a producer, just a repeater. Good luck standing up for yourself.

 

[The Big Dog]

FTR, and not that I'd have any say in this, but if a debate between Deets and Mackey were to go down, I'd like to see it focused on WTC 7 and not the Pentagon or its related flight. This is where NIST has at least proposed a hypothesis and where the greater amount of documentation exists. IMO, the Pentagon is a non-starter.

Excuse me, Red? Perhaps you missed Mr. Deets last post, number 367 in this very thread.

He wants to talk about the CIT Boys and the Pentagon.

He gave a nice speech sitting on a fancier version of the tree house sofa. He said in this thread that no one has spoken up, well at least as far as CIT has told him, huh Red?

But In Your Opinion, the Pentagon is a non-starter. You better tell Mr. Deets that.

I am all for a moderated thread, here is the topic:

Lloyde England, evil or REALLY Evil: willing pawn or arch-mastermind behind the destruction of the Pentagon?